Torrington Savings Bank Mortgage Servicing Co. v. Chance –10/28/2013

The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving the committee’s report, deed, and sale of the defendant’s foreclosed home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court committed error by not conducting a hearing, sua sponte, to determine whether the plaintiff…had standing, as the holder of the note, at the time it instituted the foreclosure action. On the basis of the record before us, including the admissions of the defendant in his answer that the plaintiff had been assigned the note and mortgage on April 26, 2007; see Industrial Mold & Tool, Inc. v. Zaleski, 146 Conn. App. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2013); the foreclosure complaint and documents attached thereto, and the supporting affidavit and documents attached to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed error by not holding, sua sponte, a full evidentiary hearing on the uncontested issue of whether the plaintiff had standing to institute the foreclosure action.

Read Opinion